Player Discussion Daniel Sprong

[The Old Master]

Thanks for coming here and telling us how our guy is going to pan out here...

Seriously, what's the point you're trying to make? Thanking us for taking a "bust" off your hand, like come on dude...

if you go to the pens board , you will see that there is a very big divide on sprong. the ones who have bought into the co. line and don't have the highest hockey IQ, will tell you he's a bust. (see poster above) the pen's office has a way of trying to make players that are moved look bad, mostly undeserved. the truth is that we don't know how good he will be. but we do know he didn't get a fair chance in pgh. please don't judge all pen fans by the some.

 

[Duck Off]

Haha I wonder how many get this reference.

just us vets

 

[Duck Off]

Thing is, it isn't, or at least shouldn't be, difficult to find serviceable NHL depth D-Men. Hell, I think we have had a 5 guys rotation of guys this year who were as serviceable as Pettersson. I would not be happy if my GM gave up a high upside prospect for an asset that is more dime a dozen. I am not even a Sprong truther and think he is more likely to bust than be a top 6 winger, but I still would be pissed at the asset management of trading a high upside prospect for a serviceable depth d man.

That's really not a fair assessment, and I can see why a few Pens fans were annoyed at you in the main board thread about this.

I don't think anyone would argue that Sprong has higher upside, but I'd argue that Marcus was/is the safer bet on being an NHL player. Simply labelling Pettersson as only a "serviceable depth d man" really isn't accurate. At this point, sure. However, that logic would suggest we should call Sprong a "4th liner with a good shot". Just because a defenseman isn't mean or doesn't put up amazing offensive numbers; doesn't mean they can't be very valuable down the line. Like someone said, Marcus has flashed offensive potential, and he's clearly not filled in to his body yet. If he tops out as a Lindholm like player with less offense to his game, that's still a damn good player.

 

[nbducksfan19]

That's really not a fair assessment, and I can see why a few Pens fans were annoyed at you in the main board thread about this.

I don't think anyone would argue that Sprong has higher upside, but I'd argue that Marcus was/is the safer bet on being an NHL player. Simply labelling Pettersson as only a "serviceable depth d man" really isn't accurate. At this point, sure. However, that logic would suggest we should call Sprong a "4th liner with a good shot". Just because a defenseman isn't mean or doesn't put up amazing offensive numbers; doesn't mean they can't be very valuable down the line. Like someone said, Marcus has flashed offensive potential, and he's clearly not filled in to his body yet. If he tops out as a Lindholm like player with less offense to his game, that's still a damn good player.

I have always said Pettersson is the safer bet. However, nothing Pettersson has done in his junior career or NHL/AHL career has suggested him being more than a Ben Loveyjoy/Jonathan Ericsson type D-Man. It is not like he has ever tore up a junior league, lead or powerplay, or played top-line minutes on a WJC team. Could he all of of sudden develop skills we have not yet seen at any level, I guess. However, it seems that he will very likely develop into a more mature version of what he currently is. That is not to say he has no value or is useless, I just would not want to see our gm trade a high upside prospect for one that does not project for high end upside.

 

[Trojans86]

I've never seen upside for Pettersson beyond 3rd pair d. That is not a slight because to be a 3rd pair d in the NHL is quite an accomplishment, I just dont see the upside. Everyone develops at different rates but he just doesnt have any dominant qualities. Maybe I'm spoiled because I saw huge upside in Montour and Theo right away but Pettersson looks exactly like a solid 3rd pairing d.

Sprong has a long way to go but does have a ton of upside. Good trade for both sides.

 

[Duck Off]

I have always said Pettersson is the safer bet. However, nothing Pettersson has done in his junior career or NHL/AHL career has suggested him being more than a Ben Loveyjoy/Jonathan Ericsson type D-Man. It is not like he has ever tore up a junior league, lead or powerplay, or played top-line minutes on a WJC team. Could he all of of sudden develop skills we have not yet seen at any level, I guess. However, it seems that he will very likely develop into a more mature version of what he currently is. That is not to say he has no value or is useless, I just would not want to see our gm trade a high upside prospect for one that does not project for high end upside.

As I said, if he develops into a Lindholm like player with less offensive upside, that's still a top 3 defenseman. Now, I don't see him reaching that level personally, and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying. However, I think you're taking subtle jabs at Pettersson in your conversations about the trade. Maybe they're not intentional, but "he's a safer player" and "he's a depth defenseman" are not remotely similar statements. Like I said, it's not hard to see why Pens fans were taking some of your statements as jabs at them.

Your examples and reasoning seem a bit flawed to me. "tore up a junior league, lead a PP, or played top line minutes" are usually not going to be things someone with Pettersson's skill set shows in lower levels. I don't recall Hampus ever doing any of these things either. Though, he did have an impressive WJC. By your definition every offensive defenseman has more potential than more defense minded defenseman who don't put up great stats at lower levels. I completely disagree with that logic. Dumba, Pouliot, Trouba, Ceci, etc. all arguably had better metrics using your examples. Due to the age these guys are drafted, some are more project type players. That's clearly what Pettersson is; though he's already NHL level.

I do think Sprong was the better prospect, but I don't see near as much wrong with this trade from a Pittsburg perspective as you're implying. Definitely don't see this as Pittsburgh trading a high end prospect for a "serviceable depth d man". Just kinda weird that you're referring to Sprong not only as a prospect, but a high end one; yet Marcus is already just a serviceable depth d man...

 

[nbducksfan19]

As I said, if he develops into a Lindholm like player with less offensive upside, that's still a top 3 defenseman. Now, I don't see him reaching that level personally, and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you're saying. However, I think you're taking subtle jabs at Pettersson in your conversations about the trade. Maybe they're not intentional, but "he's a safer player" and "he's a depth defenseman" are not remotely similar statements. Like I said, it's not hard to see why Pens fans were taking some of your statements as jabs at them.

Your examples and reasoning seem a bit flawed to me. "tore up a junior league, lead a PP, or played top line minutes" are usually not going to be things someone with Pettersson's skill set shows in lower levels. I don't recall Hampus ever doing any of these things either. Though, he did have an impressive WJC. By your definition every offensive defenseman has more potential than more defense minded defenseman who don't put up great stats at lower levels. I completely disagree with that logic. Dumba, Pouliot, Trouba, Ceci, etc. all arguably had better metrics using your examples. Due to the age these guys are drafted, some are more project type players. That's clearly what Pettersson is; though he's already NHL level.

I do think Sprong was the better prospect, but I don't see near as much wrong with this trade from a Pittsburg perspective as you're implying. Definitely don't see this as Pittsburgh trading a high end prospect for a "serviceable depth d man". Just kinda weird that you're referring to Sprong not only as a prospect, but a high end one; yet Marcus is already just a serviceable depth d man...

The extent of the comparison between Lindholm and Pettersson is pretty much that they are both Swedish. IMO, Pettersson is "safer" and likely a "depth" (4-6) type D-Man. Lindholm was in the NHL at 19 and playing top-line minutes at 20. Pettersson was playing 3rd or 2nd line duties in SHL until he was 22. My criteria I outlined where just a few things Pettersson could have done to show "high-upside", but he has not. If you know of some things he has accomplished to date that are indicative of top-flight D-Men, than feel free to share. Since you seem to want to argue that he has some hidden upside, why don't you show me all these guys who end up being 1-3 D-Men while scoring so little, and not handling top-line duties for their respective non-nhl clubs by 22.

Ultimately I get the trade, and do not mean to say Pittsburgh "lost" the trade. I think they knew full well they were trading a riskier/high upside player for a safer/lower upside player. I am just prefer taking a shot at the high upside prospect in that scenario (especially with our ability to draft and develop d-men.)

 

[edog37]

Yeah, if you're not tearing up the NHL by the age of 21 you are probably done. No hope, AHL lifer for sure.

it's not about tearing the league up, it's about watching him not do the little things like defensive accountability & basic positioning in the offensive zone. Unless he changes that, he won't last.

 

[mightyquack]

it's not about tearing the league up, it's about watching him not do the little things like defensive accountability & basic positioning in the offensive zone. Unless he changes that, he won't last.

Well the good thing is he isn't your problem anymore. Crazy, huh?

 

[Magnus the Duck]

Pettersson is playing very well in Penguins. He is currently clearly better than Larsson, but when we get Fowler back he'd still be a 3rd pair defenseman here. I think trade was good for Pettersson, and for us to get a forward that can shoot.

 

[Gurglesons]

Pettersson is playing very well in Penguins. He is currently clearly better than Larsson, but when we get Fowler back he'd still be a 3rd pair defenseman here. I think trade was good for Pettersson, and for us to get a forward that can shoot.

Like nearly every trade the Pens have made with the Ducks it has been a win / win.

Whitney and Kunitz and Lovejoy and Despres even out right?

 

[edog37]

Well the good thing is he isn't your problem anymore. Crazy, huh?

Yep! He’s all yours

 

[nbducksfan19]

Yep! He’s all yours

Yes he is! Many thanks.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

Yep! He’s all yours

Thanks ! He's our new PP specialist & OT weapon.

 

[Paul4587]

Like nearly every trade the Pens have made with the Ducks it has been a win / win.

Whitney and Kunitz and Lovejoy and Despres even out right?

Whitney was turned into Visnovsky so while intially that was bad Murray redeemed himself and got a number one Dman out of it.

 

[Gurglesons]

Whitney was turned into Visnovsky so while intially that was bad Murray redeemed himself and got a number one Dman out of it.

Yeah, well! Lovejoy won us a cup so it doesn’t matter we gave away a solid top four D that was 23 for him.

 

[The Old Master]

Yeah, well! Lovejoy won us a cup so it doesn’t matter we gave away a solid top four D that was 23 for him.

yes it does matter.... we are not that loaded to be giving players away....and while we did win the cup with lovejoy we could of won it much easier with fatty. and now the in house fighting has spread to other teams boards. sorry!

 

[Gurglesons]

yes it does matter.... we are not that loaded to be giving players away....and while we did win the cup with lovejoy we could of won it much easier with fatty. and now the in house fighting has spread to other teams boards. sorry!

It was a joke.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

yes it does matter.... we are not that loaded to be giving players away....and while we did win the cup with lovejoy we could of won it much easier with fatty. and now the in house fighting has spread to other teams boards. sorry!

Well it keeps Anaheim's boards more active lol.

 

[duckpuck]

I have always said Pettersson is the safer bet. However, nothing Pettersson has done in his junior career or NHL/AHL career has suggested him being more than a Ben Loveyjoy/Jonathan Ericsson type D-Man. It is not like he has ever tore up a junior league, lead or powerplay, or played top-line minutes on a WJC team. Could he all of of sudden develop skills we have not yet seen at any level, I guess. However, it seems that he will very likely develop into a more mature version of what he currently is. That is not to say he has no value or is useless, I just would not want to see our gm trade a high upside prospect for one that does not project for high end upside.

Did Manson tear up the minors, play on a WJC team, or play on the power play? I certainly don't recall hearing that, yet look at him now. He obviously surpassed expectations but that just shows how hard it is to evaluate young defensive defenseman. I don't think stay at home defensemen can be evaluated based on the stat sheet or other common metrics. In fact, perhaps the best thing you can say about that type of player is you didn't notice them.

As a ducks fan, I like the trade because Pettersson was a spare asset and given the ducks need for skilled forwards. Pettersson is young with a good first pass and has upside. He'll never be elite like Lindholm, but he could end up being a very good top 4 defensemen - a less physical Manson who is a strong and dependable partner in a good pairing (even a top pairing). His floor as a bottom paring d-man is a safer bet than Sprongs (Sprong could flame out a la Brandon Pirri who has never found a NHL job/role).

 

[Exit Dose]

I still think Pettersson is going to develop into a 2/3 defenseman, and I still love this trade in spite of that. I think this is going to be a win-win trade like the New Jersey trade was.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

I still think Pettersson is going to develop into a 2/3 defenseman, and I still love this trade in spite of that. I think this is going to be a win-win trade like the New Jersey trade was.

Ill say solid 2nd pairing guy, but he was stuck behind lindholm and fowler... and i think larsson and mahura have more upside.

Love sprong, i feel like we lacked pure sniper and thats what he is i could see him having some 30 goal seasons down the line

 

[Duck Off]

The extent of the comparison between Lindholm and Pettersson is pretty much that they are both Swedish. IMO, Pettersson is "safer" and likely a "depth" (4-6) type D-Man. Lindholm was in the NHL at 19 and playing top-line minutes at 20. Pettersson was playing 3rd or 2nd line duties in SHL until he was 22. My criteria I outlined where just a few things Pettersson could have done to show "high-upside", but he has not. If you know of some things he has accomplished to date that are indicative of top-flight D-Men, than feel free to share. Since you seem to want to argue that he has some hidden upside, why don't you show me all these guys who end up being 1-3 D-Men while scoring so little, and not handling top-line duties for their respective non-nhl clubs by 22.

Are you implying that no player drafted is considered a project? If so, than you've apparently never watched anything draft related on TV. There are players who don't show much at lower levels who teams identify as projects and do their best to help develop them. Most don't work out, but occasionally they'll "hit" on one.

The similarities between Hampus an Marcus is primarily the gap control and defensive positioning. Lindholm was much further ahead in development when he was drafted than Marcus was (not to mention more talented). However, if you don't see similarities between the way Marcus plays and Lindholm's first season or two, than I don't know what to tell you.

What he's shown, just not consistently, is some potential offensive upside and physicality. As he grows as a player, maybe he gets better at consistency. Note: Project. This is nothing new in the NHL.

Ultimately I get the trade, and do not mean to say Pittsburgh "lost" the trade. I think they knew full well they were trading a riskier/high upside player for a safer/lower upside player. I am just prefer taking a shot at the high upside prospect in that scenario (especially with our ability to draft and develop d-men.)

"traded a high end prospect for a serviceable depth d man". Maybe it wasn't your intention, but it sure sounded like you were saying they lost the trade. Hence their irritation at you on the main board that I was pointing out. Like you, I like the trade and am happy you made it. I just think your wording is bad when discussing the trade.

 

[nbducksfan19]

Are you implying that no player drafted is considered a project? If so, than you've apparently never watched anything draft related on TV. There are players who don't show much at lower levels who teams identify as projects and do their best to help develop them. Most don't work out, but occasionally they'll "hit" on one.

The similarities between Hampus an Marcus is primarily the gap control and defensive positioning. Lindholm was much further ahead in development when he was drafted than Marcus was (not to mention more talented). However, if you don't see similarities between the way Marcus plays and Lindholm's first season or two, than I don't know what to tell you.

What he's shown, just not consistently, is some potential offensive upside and physicality. As he grows as a player, maybe he gets better at consistency. Note: Project. This is nothing new in the NHL.



"traded a high end prospect for a serviceable depth d man". Maybe it wasn't your intention, but it sure sounded like you were saying they lost the trade. Hence their irritation at you on the main board that I was pointing out. Like you, I like the trade and am happy you made it. I just think your wording is bad when discussing the trade.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph. Of course Pettersson was drafted as a project; however, not all projects are the same or drafted with the same upside in mind. Vatanen was a project, but he had some high end offensive upside and skill you could project if he were to develope defensively and overcome size.

petterson was a project, but never had high end projectable upside. I don’t recall anyone in any draft preview/review, or even in the years following the draft, calling Pettersson a project who had top pairing upside.

You seem to be intentionally taking one quote, of many posts on the subject, out of context. As I said on the main board, the trade makes sense for both teams. The Pens are more of a contender and got the more complete player who can help them now. Ducks got the guy with higher ceiling, but is currently more of a tweener. I just like the trade because we have historically had a very hard time drafting/developing scoring wingers and those guys don’t grow on trees. Also, in prospect type trades I’d rathet go with the guy with higher upside (note: that does not mean that I think Sprong will be better, but I think if both hit their realistic ceilings based, on past play and skill set, Sprong would be the more elite player.)

 

[Duck Off]

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph. Of course Pettersson was drafted as a project; however, not all projects are the same or drafted with the same upside in mind. Vatanen was a project, but he had some high end offensive upside and skill you could project if he were to develope defensively and overcome size.

petterson was a project, but never had high end projectable upside. I don’t recall anyone in any draft preview/review, or even in the years following the draft, calling Pettersson a project who had top pairing upside.

Defenseman who are more defensive minded are harder to project and usually don't get the draft hype from the media. That's nothing new. I can't think of any D prospects who are labeled something like "elite shutdown defender" so we shouldn't pretend that's a thing. Typically they're project is "top 4 defenseman" or something vanilla like that. Honestly, I think you're fixating a bit too much on offensive minded defenseman. To be fair, the media does the same thing. However, why would Murray spend a 2nd round pick on Pettersson, when he only spent a 4th on Vatanen? That's because there's more to evaluating players than stat sheets. There's potential, eye tests, etc. Clearly they saw something in Pettersson that they figured he'd be more than a "depth d man".

You seem to be intentionally taking one quote, of many posts on the subject, out of context. As I said on the main board, the trade makes sense for both teams.

No, I'm sorry, but that's not it. Look at the first post I replied to on this thread. I'm saying your description for Pettersson seems very unfair. It's not just here. It's both places you've discussed the trade. You're referring to Sprong as "high upside prospect" and Pettersson as "dime a dozen asset" and "serviceable depth d man". Like I've already said, maybe you're not intending to, but your descriptions of the players seem very lopsided. That's not me taking things out of context, that's bad word usage on your part.

The Pens are more of a contender and got the more complete player who can help them now. Ducks got the guy with higher ceiling, but is currently more of a tweener. I just like the trade because we have historically had a very hard time drafting/developing scoring wingers and those guys don’t grow on trees. Also, in prospect type trades I’d rathet go with the guy with higher upside (note: that does not mean that I think Sprong will be better, but I think if both hit their realistic ceilings based, on past play and skill set, Sprong would be the more elite player.)

I agree with everything here. Like I said, your and I's views on the trade really aren't that difficult. As I mentioned in my initial response, I think your descriptions (or at least part) of Pettersson are just flawed.